Earlier this year The Current’s publisher sent a Freedom of Information request (FOI) under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (MFIPPA) to Madawaska Valley Township’s CAO Suzanne Klatt. He asked for disclosure of records that the Township and Council relied on to justify the personal public attacks that were made on him, The Current’s editor and The Current itself at a council meeting in August 2019. Under MFIPPA, municipalities are legally required to process and respond to every request. The mandatory procedure required CAO Klatt, in her capacity as MV’s Information Officer, to search municipal records and issue a decision letter listing what records she found and stating whether under MFIPPA she would agree to disclose them or not. For obvious reasons there is no discretion given under the Act to a municipality to simply tear up an FOI.
However, KIatt did just that and returned the publisher’s cheque for the required fee with a note that she was doing so on the advice of the Township’s lawyers. Those lawyers are the Sault Ste. Marie firm of Wishart Law who sent the August 2019 letter to Klatt which implied that the publisher had not been honest in his public statements about his legal career and which recommended to the Township that it be made public without giving him an opportunity to respond. The publisher wrote to Wishart Law taking issue with the FOI advice given to Klatt and referred them to previous reported decisions of the province’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) which conflicted with the advice given to her. When this did not result in a reversal of Klatt’s rejection, the publisher contacted the IPC and was told that he should ask the Commissioner to “look into it” by filing a notice of appeal. He did so, which resulted in the IPC opening a file and then appointing a Mediator.
The Mediator’s report was attached to MV Council’s agenda for the October 20th meeting. It questioned the propriety of the Township responding to Freedom of Information requests through its lawyers. It also recommended the Township withdraw the allegation that the publisher’s request was “frivolous and vexatious” and that the Township should issue a decision letter in compliance with MFIPPA. Klatt accepted that recommendation and quickly forwarded the decision letter to the publisher. However, this was only after Township resources had been used including fees paid to Wishart Law and demands on MV staff caused because the publisher had been told to appeal in order to ensure compliance by the Township.
When the report was presented by Klatt to Council at the October 20th meeting, it did not result in any discussion or explanation of the breach of compliance with MFIPPA procedures. The only acknowledgement made of the report’s existence, even though it was on the agenda, was when Mayor Love said it was being accepted as “information.” This lack of transparency by Council follows another decision of the IPC a year earlier which caused the Adjudicator in that case to criticize the Township for its “flawed interpretation of its obligations under the Act.” That lack of compliance resulted in substantial costs to the taxpayer including use of staff, consultants and municipal lawyers. When that decision was reported to Council by Klatt, it also did not result in transparency about the reasons for that waste of public funds.
This reporter sent a list of questions to both Klatt and Mayor Love seeking explanations for this conduct suggesting that it appears to amount to a policy of obstructing compliance with FOI requests. He also questioned whether steps will be taken to recover legal fees paid to Wishart Law. A reply was received from CAO Klatt, but not Mayor Love, which did not answer any of the questions put to them. One of those questions was whether the Township and Council would go on the record to reassure the public that in future MV would take all steps necessary to ensure that it would do what the law required it to do. No such assurance was received.
The publisher has written to Council and Klatt suggesting that in the public interest an investigation into this matter should be carried out. He has also asked for an apology for wasting his time and that of the Commissioner. No response has been received to either of these requests.
image bobsbusiness.co.uk